IRS commissioner dares House GOP to hold him in contempt over Tea Party

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

The IRS says the rule of thumb for 501c4s is that they're allowed to engage in political activity, as long as it's not more than 50% of the group's activity. While they're strictly prohibited from "electioneering", they quite often engage in "lobbying", "issue advocacy", or "education". Often these are frank media buys either advocating or criticizing particular candidates; essentially political ads.

The IRS allows this on both sides of the political spectrum, but since the extra scrutiny and audits of potential- and already existing conservative organizations deliberately limited the number of conservative 501c groups, they had less chance to affect voter opinion. As I say: naked election-rigging.

These 501©(4) organizations are not prohibited from "electioneering". The regulations just require that "electioneering" not be the primary function of the organization.

[UncleBeer 244]

Take a look at how much air time each side had and you will probably find that it cut right down the middle.

In a perfect world that might be true, but since the IRS (a branch of the US government sworn to treat all citizens alike) by its own admission is deliberately limiting speech from one half of the political spectrum, then it's clearly not "cut right down the middle"; it's been effected by those in power.

Besides, who pays attention to these brain dead ads anyways?

The ads work; otherwise they wouldn't make 'em.

IMHO, they should just put away with that part of the IRS code altogether

I could agree to that, but as it is, only "lefty/liberal/progressives" are getting the green light from the government.

The media's turned a blind eye to this scandal, as they did with Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Pigford, Solyndra, Black Panthers, DACA and Obama's other end-runs around Congress (I could go on...). Did you know that none of the three 'major networks' covered OP's story: the IRS commissioner daring Issa to bring contempt charges? Major media working overtime to protect Obama.

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

In a perfect world that might be true, but since the IRS (a branch of the US government sworn to treat all citizens alike) by its own admission is deliberately limiting speech from one half of the political spectrum, then it's clearly not "cut right down the middle"; it's been effected by those in power.

Man, you are really reaching. Please explain how speech was limited. If an individual feels strongly about a candidate then they can contribute directly to their candidates political campaign instead of one of these social welfare organizations.

[UncleBeer 244]

These 501©(4) organizations are not prohibited from "electioneering". The regulations just require that "electioneering" not be the primary function of the organization.

They absolutely are prohibited from hard-core electioneering. They may however engage in "election-related advocacy" though (as less than half of their total activity, as I already wrote). It's a fine line of distinction, and unfortunately, the IRS gets to make that call.

[UncleBeer 244]

Please explain how speech was limited.

<sigh> This was in post # 44:

The IRS allows this on both sides of the political spectrum, but since the extra scrutiny and audits of potential- and already existing conservative organizations deliberately limited the number of conservative 501c groups, they had less chance to affect voter opinion. As I say: naked election-rigging.

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

They absolutely are prohibited from hard-core electioneering. They may however engage in "election-related advocacy" though (as less than half of their total activity, as I already wrote). It's a fine line of distinction, and unfortunately, the IRS gets to make that call.

You are wrong. The regulations only limit the amount of political activity a 501©(4) organization can engage in.

I just found this article that sheds more light on this controversy.

Why Dark Money Groups Refused Generous IRS Limits On Political Activity

Has Darrell Issa finally held one too many hearings in his contrived scandal? Testifying to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee yesterday, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen revealed that many conservative nonprofits had turned down a chance to accept limits on political spending that were far more generous than the written laws were supposed to allow. The offer simply was not good enough for “dark money” organizations that have no real interest in social welfare.

Surely this is not something that Issa wanted everyone to know about his manufactured controversy: that the IRS has a legitimate mandate to reign in dark money nonprofits. Our exclusive coverage this week of Think Freely Media shows that for many of these dark money groups, “social welfare” was never even an afterthought. These organizations were created to drive public discourse through advertisements and political action. They were invented by, and serve the interests of, right wing billionaire funders whose agenda has nothing to do with the well-being of American society. Take the Koch brothers’s long-running campaign against wind energy tax credits:

Koskinen … explained that the IRS had implemented all nine recommendations of the inspector general’s report that first flagged the so-called targeting scandal. One of those recommendations was to clear up an unacceptable backlog in processing applications for tax-exempt status from groups that had been waiting months.

There was a simple way to clear that logjam: All any group had to do to be granted tax-exempt status as a social welfare nonprofit under section 501©4 of the U.S. tax code was to swear that it was, in fact, primarily engaged in social welfare work. To make it easy, the IRS decided that groups had to pledge they would confine their political activity to less than 40 percent of their work.

Several dozen did so, but 19 declined, Koskinen said.

What that suggests to proponents of increased campaign finance disclosure is that such groups are less interested in pursuing social welfare and more interested in pursuing partisan politics — while keeping their donors hidden.

Charles G. and David H. Koch — the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas Koch Industries conglomerate — have enlisted their extensive network of think tanks, advocacy groups and friends on Capitol Hill to spearhead a campaign to pull the plug on the PTC. Never mind the fact that the oil and gas industry has averaged four times what the wind tax credit is worth in federal tax breaks and subsidies annually for the last 95 years.

The Koch network is fighting the wind industry on a number of fronts. Last month, Koch-funded Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) sent a

letter

signed by 52 House members to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to let the PTC expire. Meanwhile, a coalition of some 100 national and local groups organized by the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity sent a

letter

to each member of Congress asking them to do the same.

The purpose of all these proliferating, networked groups is to separate the Koch brothers’s cash from its actual uses and put a “grassroots” veneer on what are actually their own very narrow lobbying interests. Far from any real benefit to American society, the objective is to further divide and atomize Americans. By deliberately making government fail to answer the challenges of the day, Charles and David hope that the rest of us will just give up on ever making government work, thus freeing them from the “threat” of effective regulation.

The Kochs’ election strategy is a sort of bait-and-switch, since their stake in public policy is, in fact, only tangentially related to healthcare. Anti-Obamacare messaging is part of a larger campaign against government regulation that threatens the Kochs’ bottom line—most critically, in response to climate change. “We have a broader cautionary tale,” Tim Phillips, the president of AFP, told

The New York Times

. “The president’s out there touting billions of dollars on climate change. We want Americans to think about what they promised with the last social welfare boondoggle and look at what the actual result is.”

The Kochs’ investments in fossil fuel include petrochemical complexes and thousands of miles of pipeline and refineries in Alaska, Minnesota, and Texas, an empire that emits over 24 million tons of carbon pollution every year, about as much as 5 million cars. Thanks to a recent investigation by the International Forum on Globalization, we now have confirmation of what was long suspected: the Kochs are one of the biggest investors in Alberta’s tar sands, with a Koch subsidiary holding leases on 1.1 million acres of land in the region, giving them a major stake in the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline—despite their insistence otherwise.

Since the dark money explosion began after 2006, dark money groups have resisted effective regulation by the IRS, and the entire “scandal” has been a smokescreen to divert attention from the fact that these groups are not even trying to fulfill a lawful social welfare mission. The IRS is considering new rules that would tighten restrictions on political activity far more than the limits that those dark money groups refused before, so of course Republicans are fighting to prevent those rules from ever coming into effect. This week saw House Republican leadership kill legislation to help Ukraine rather than accept an IRS investigation into dark money groups, thus putting party before country yet again on behalf of their billionaire sponsors. As Darrell Issa knows, it is great work if you can get it.

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/latest-news/why-dark-money-groups-refused-generous-irs-limits-on-political-activity/

[UncleBeer 244]

Has Darrell Issa finally held one too many hearings in his contrived scandal?

Ahh: "phony scandal" journalism. Could you have found a worse source?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In a perfect world that might be true, but since the IRS (a branch of the US government sworn to treat all citizens alike) by its own admission is deliberately limiting speech from one half of the political spectrum, then it's clearly not "cut right down the middle"; it's been effected by those in power.

Prove it!

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Ahh: "phony scandal" journalism. Could you have found a worse source?

No more phony than the shyte you put up. Attack what is written not the source.

[UncleBeer 244]

Prove it!

Prove . . . what?

No more phony than the shyte you put up. Attack what is written not the source.

Deep irony. You just attacked me!

[UncleBeer 244]

What that suggests to proponents of increased campaign finance disclosure is that such groups are less interested in pursuing social welfare and more interested in pursuing partisan politics — while keeping their donors hidden.

Interesting that that should enter the conversation: "hidden" donors. During all this, the IRS demanded donors lists from conservative 501cs (blatantly illegal) and even leaked these lists to 3rd parties (of course also illegal). If only we had a constitutional scholar running things, this kinda stuff wouldn't be happening.

Before Lerner was a political dragon-lady at the IRS, she was a political dragon-lady at the FEC, abusing conservative groups. This administration has dropped all pretense to fairness and transparency.

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Interesting that that should enter the conversation: "hidden" donors. During all this, the IRS demanded donors lists from conservative 501cs (blatantly illegal) and even leaked these lists to 3rd parties (of course also illegal). If only we had a constitutional scholar running things, this kinda stuff wouldn't be happening.

Before Lerner was a political dragon-lady at the IRS, she was a political dragon-lady at the FEC, abusing conservative groups. This administration has dropped all pretense to fairness and transparency.

Why is the IRS demanding a donor list illegal? I don't want your opinion, I want a cite of the U.S. Code section that was violated. I agree with you that the IRS leaking the donor lists is illegal. Whoever did that should at a minimum lose their job.

[UncleBeer 244]

Why is the IRS demanding a donor list illegal? I don't want your opinion, I want a cite of the U.S. Code section that was violated.

Making demands, are we? Why not invest in one o' them fancy interweb thingies and look it up the specific legal citation yourself, if that's what you reaaaly need.

Why Don’t 501©(4)s Have to Disclose Their Donors?

Social welfare nonprofits don’t fall under the Federal Election Commission’s standard definition of a political committee, which, under FEC guidelines, must disclose its donors. Because 501©(4)s say their primary purpose is social welfare, they can keep their donors secret. The only exception is if someone gives them money and specifically states the funds are for a political ad.

And unlike political committees, social welfare nonprofits have a legal right to keep their donors secret. That stems from the landmark 1958 Supreme Court case, NAACP v. Alabama, which held the NAACP didn’t have to identify its members because disclosure could lead to harassment.

Fast forward to the post-Citizens United world of campaign finance where outside groups can now spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections so long as they are independent of candidates. Seeing the advantages offered by groups that can engage in political activity while keeping their donors secret, both Democrats and Republicans have seized onto this opening in the tax code.

That’s why in recent years, many new 501©(4)s have popped up right before the election season, focusing heavily on television advertising, usually attacking, though sometimes promoting, candidates running for office.

These nonprofits do have to report some of their activities to the FEC. When they run ads directly advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate, they have to tell regulators how much and what they spend money on — but not where the money comes from.

Since they can’t make these types of ads their sole activity, many 501©(4)s focus on so-called issue ads, which they only have to report to the FEC in defined windows before an election.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Prove . . . what?

Your claim.

[UncleBeer 244]

Your claim.

Just tell me what it is you'd like me to 'prove'? A complete sentence would be appreciated.